Disposed

Mohammad Aqheel Ahmed, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC28 Nov 2017WP/39408/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought mandamus to demolish unauthorized constructions on public property by the 8th respondent and restrain future violations. The High Court disposed of the petition by directing the Assistant City Planner to consider a representation dated 03.11.2017 within four weeks and report the decision. Pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Assistant City Planner to consider and dispose of a representation dated 03.11.2017 within four weeks and communicate the decision within a week thereafter; directing respondents to stop

Mohammad Aqheel Ahmed, Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SEETHARAMA MURTI

¶2

Writ Petition No.39408 of 2017

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief/ s:

¶5

‘ ….to issue Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the inaction on the part of the respondent Nos.2 to 7 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the rules of construction, infringing the rights of the petitioners under Articles 14, 21 of the Constitution of India and further direct the respondent Nos.2 to 7 to demolish the illegal constructions made by the respondent No.8, further direct the respondent Nos2 to 7 to restrain the 8^th respondent from making any unauthorised construction in further in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders…”

¶6

I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel representing the respondents 2 & 3. I have perused the material record.

¶7

The grievance of the writ petitioners is this: - ‘The 8^th respondent is making unauthorised constructions in a public property by grabbing the same; earlier when a complaint was given such constructions were demolished by the officers of the GHMC; again the 8^th respondent is making the subject constructions and is also illegally tapping electricity and drawing power through unauthorised wires; when a representation is made, on 03.11.2017, no action has been taken by the respondents.’

¶8

At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that if a direction is given to the respondents to consider and

¶9

dispose of the afore-stated representation of the petitioner, ends of justice would be met.

¶10

Learned standing counsel would submit that the representation is given recently and that if a direction is given to dispose of the same within a reasonable time the respondents would do so.

¶11

Recording the afore-said submissions, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Assistant City Planner, Old Circle No.7, GHMC, Hyderabad, to consider and dispose of the representation, dated 03.11.2017, of the petitioner within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, however, in accordance with the procedure established by law and communicate the decision taken thereon to the petitioner within a week thereafter. In the event if it is noticed/ found that the subject property where the 8^th respondent is making constructions is a public property and/ or the 8^th respondent is making subject constructions without any building permit or in deviation of building permit, if any, the respondents are directed to stop the 8^th respondent from making any such constructions.

¶12

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶14

________________________ M. SEETHARAMA MURTI, J

¶15

28.11.2017

¶16

Note: Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Assistant City Planner, Old Circle No.7, GHMC, Hyderabad. [B/ o] Vjl

Mohammad Aqheel Ahmed, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Aqheel Ahmed, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Usha Bawgikar, Hyd and Another Vs Gopal Rao Bawgikar, Hyd and Twenty Four Others

M. Raman Naidu, Medak Dist Vs Rasheed Shareef, Hyderabad and 4 Others

Smt. B Sridevi, Guntur Dist Vs Sri Bommisetty Venkata Satay Suneel Kumar, Secunderabad

S Sharada and Another, Vs Prls.Ecy., Energey Dept., Hyd., and 3 Others

Dasari Sharada, Warangal,and Anr. Vs the State of Ts.,Energy,Hyderabad,and 3 Otrs.

Silver Oak Bunglaw Owners Assn Vs Chairman Shri T.Chiranjeevululu and 6 Others